There’s probably some deeper metaphor to be drawn here about the detail in a single thing versus taking in a more vague whole, but I’m too tired to think of it.
Well in the art world, the abstract but colorful Impressionism of say Monet always draws more acclaim and money than say the realism black and white art of say an instruction manual
I’m zeroing in on the specific reference to backgrounds as a necessary component. Does a leg, grass, a flower, and a blue sky just clutter up the shoeness? Is the more realistic picture stark and soul-less?
With some very old comic strips existing online as “modern” and as “classic” offerings, one very common complaint is that the modern ones lack detail. And a common counter is that the older ones are cluttered. Sometimes the argument is over which is “prettier,” again often based on detail.
These discussions arise whether the strip has been drawn by the same artist for decades (Peanuts) or by a series of re-interpreters over the years ( like, You Know).
Having said that, I like both of these shoe drawings. I’d be likely to frame both. Then I’d hang the colorful one in a home work space where it would cheer me up whenever I glanced up at it. The other, in the living room… or my reading nook.
Final Exam, essay question, a three hour time frame.
Pick one or both of the following: Thomas Kinkade or Piet Mondrian. Is he a fraud, a genius, both, neither, something else? Defend your answer.
Both shoes tell a story. The one on the right, the story is about what we see, the wearer is standing with one leg off the ground, and they almost stepped on a flower. Did someone point that out, so they stopped midstride? The one on the left is tied, and is broken in enough that the canvas is not rigid, but it’s not so warn that it’s getting visible holes or the laces frayed. The wearer removed it without untying it, so they may have been exhausted.
Although backgrounds are often beneficial, Lucy’s picture doesn’t need one. I wonder if she doesn’t usually do them because she’s focusing on parts that challenge her more, or focusing on parts that challenge her less, or she just likes her pictures telling their stories by what’s not shown.
zorak950 about 4 years ago
There’s probably some deeper metaphor to be drawn here about the detail in a single thing versus taking in a more vague whole, but I’m too tired to think of it.
cellardoor about 4 years ago
I love how nonplussed Nancy looks, even though she suffers from Dunning-Kruger effect just as much as Agnes does.
https://www.gocomics.com/nancy/2018/12/19
https://www.gocomics.com/nancy/2019/03/09
dcdete. about 4 years ago
Well in the art world, the abstract but colorful Impressionism of say Monet always draws more acclaim and money than say the realism black and white art of say an instruction manual
WaitingMan about 4 years ago
A little self-referential humor from Olivia?
jimmjonzz Premium Member about 4 years ago
I’m zeroing in on the specific reference to backgrounds as a necessary component. Does a leg, grass, a flower, and a blue sky just clutter up the shoeness? Is the more realistic picture stark and soul-less?
With some very old comic strips existing online as “modern” and as “classic” offerings, one very common complaint is that the modern ones lack detail. And a common counter is that the older ones are cluttered. Sometimes the argument is over which is “prettier,” again often based on detail.
These discussions arise whether the strip has been drawn by the same artist for decades (Peanuts) or by a series of re-interpreters over the years ( like, You Know).
Having said that, I like both of these shoe drawings. I’d be likely to frame both. Then I’d hang the colorful one in a home work space where it would cheer me up whenever I glanced up at it. The other, in the living room… or my reading nook.
Final Exam, essay question, a three hour time frame.
Pick one or both of the following: Thomas Kinkade or Piet Mondrian. Is he a fraud, a genius, both, neither, something else? Defend your answer.
The Reader Premium Member about 4 years ago
That’s why we have to do background checks.
Jefano Premium Member about 4 years ago
As Ernie Bushmiller would have explained, the picture on the left needs three rocks – no more, no less.
DCBakerEsq about 4 years ago
Illustrator. Artist. Not the same thing.
Hue SL about 4 years ago
Both shoes tell a story. The one on the right, the story is about what we see, the wearer is standing with one leg off the ground, and they almost stepped on a flower. Did someone point that out, so they stopped midstride? The one on the left is tied, and is broken in enough that the canvas is not rigid, but it’s not so warn that it’s getting visible holes or the laces frayed. The wearer removed it without untying it, so they may have been exhausted.
Although backgrounds are often beneficial, Lucy’s picture doesn’t need one. I wonder if she doesn’t usually do them because she’s focusing on parts that challenge her more, or focusing on parts that challenge her less, or she just likes her pictures telling their stories by what’s not shown.